CPU Comparison

The Intel Atom x7425E and Intel Core i3-7100T represent two very different philosophies in CPU design: one is a modern, low-power mobile part built on a 10 nm process, while the other is a legacy, higher-power desktop chip on 14 nm. Despite the Atom’s lower thermal envelope, benchmark results show a decisive performance advantage for the newer part, with the Atom winning all five head-to-head comparisons. The data positions these processors at nearly identical overall performance percentiles, but the specific workload results tell a more nuanced story about where each chip excels and where its limitations become apparent.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result is the consistency of the Atom x7425E’s victory across every benchmark test. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Atom scores 443 against the i3-7100T’s 319, a delta of 38.9%. That gap is nearly identical in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where the Atom’s 1849 outpaces the i3’s 1333 by 38.7%. The pattern holds in Cinebench R23 multi-core as well: 4403 versus 3175, a 38.7% margin. These are not marginal wins; the Atom is delivering roughly 39% more multi-threaded throughput across all three Cinebench versions.

Single-core results are equally lopsided. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the Atom posts 260 versus the i3’s 188, a 38.3% advantage. Cinebench R23 single-core shows a 621 to 448 result, a 38.6% delta. This is notable because the i3-7100T runs at a fixed 3.40 GHz base clock with no boost, while the Atom’s base clock is only 1500 MHz but can boost up to 3.40 GHz. The Atom’s higher boost clock, combined with the more efficient Gracemont cores, allows it to win both single-threaded and multi-threaded tests decisively.

The absence of a Cinebench R15 single-core score for the i3-7100T in the data set means no comparison can be made for that specific test, but the available benchmarks are sufficient to establish a clear trend. The Atom’s average benchmark score of 1273 is higher than the i3’s 1258, and its percentile ranking of 35 vs. 34 confirms that these chips sit at nearly the same level relative to all CPUs in the database. However, the head-to-head deltas show that the Atom is not just slightly better; it is consistently and substantially ahead.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher multi-core score in Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Atom x7425E scores 4403 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, which is 38.7% higher than the Intel Core i3-7100T’s score of 3175.

Q: What is the difference in single-core performance between the two chips?

A: In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Atom x7425E scores 621, while the i3-7100T scores 448, giving the Atom a 38.6% advantage. The gap is similar in Cinebench R20 single-core, where the Atom’s 260 beats the i3’s 188 by 38.3%.

Q: How do their overall average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Atom x7425E has an average benchmark score of 1273, while the i3-7100T averages 1258. Both chips are near the 35th percentile of all CPUs, with the Atom at 35 and the i3 at 34.

Q: Are there any benchmark tests where the i3-7100T wins?

A: No. The data shows the Atom x7425E wins all five head-to-head benchmark comparisons, with the i3-7100T recording zero wins.

Q: What is the base clock difference between the two processors?

A: The Atom x7425E has a base clock of 1500 MHz, while the i3-7100T has a base clock of 3.40 GHz. However, the Atom’s boost clock reaches 3.40 GHz, matching the i3’s fixed clock speed.

Q: How does the i3-7100T compare to its closest rivals?

A: The i3-7100T’s nearest rival is the Intel Core i7-3615QM, which scores 1260, just 0.2% higher. It also trails the AMD Athlon 200GE (1261) by 0.2%, the Intel Xeon W-2102 (1264) by 0.5%, and the Intel Core i3-1005G1 (1265) by 0.6%.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from entirely different architectural lineages. The Atom x7425E is built on Alder Lake-N architecture with a codename of Alder Lake-N, using Gracemont efficiency cores on a 10 nm process node. It has 4 cores and 4 threads, with a base clock of 1500 MHz and a boost clock of 3.40 GHz. Its cache hierarchy is distinctive: 96 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of shared L2, and 6 MB of shared L3. This is a mobile-oriented design, as indicated by its market segment, and it uses a single-channel memory bus.

The i3-7100T, in contrast, is a Kaby Lake desktop part built on a 14 nm process. It has 2 cores and 4 threads, with a fixed base clock of 3.40 GHz and no boost clock. Its cache layout is different: 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and a smaller 3 MB of shared L3. The i3 uses a dual-channel memory bus, which is a fundamental architectural difference from the Atom’s single-channel design.

The process node difference is significant: 10 nm versus 14 nm. This explains why the Atom can achieve similar or better performance while consuming only 12 W TDP, compared to the i3’s 35 W TDP. The Atom’s Gracemont cores are optimized for efficiency, whereas the i3’s Kaby Lake cores are from an older, less efficient generation. The Atom also supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the i3 is limited to DDR4. Both have the same memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s, but the Atom achieves this with a single channel, while the i3 needs two channels.

Specification Differences

The most obvious specification difference is core count: the Atom has 4 cores, double the i3’s 2 cores. Both support 4 threads, so the Atom’s advantage in multi-threading comes from having more physical cores rather than hyper-threading. The base clocks differ substantially, with the i3’s 3.40 GHz being much higher than the Atom’s 1500 MHz, but the Atom’s boost clock of 3.40 GHz closes that gap under load. The i3 has no boost clock, so it runs at a constant 3.40 GHz.

Thermal design power is another major separator: the Atom draws 12 W, while the i3 draws 35 W. This makes the Atom far more suitable for fanless or passively cooled systems. The sockets are incompatible: the Atom uses Intel BGA 1264, while the i3 uses Intel Socket 1151. The Atom’s process node is 10 nm, versus the i3’s 14 nm.

Memory support differs, with the Atom accepting both DDR4 and DDR5, while the i3 only supports DDR4. The memory bus is single-channel on the Atom and dual-channel on the i3, yet both achieve the same 38.4 GB/s bandwidth. PCIe lanes also differ: the Atom provides Gen 3 with 9 lanes, while the i3 provides Gen 3 with 16 lanes. Integrated graphics are different as well: the Atom has UHD Graphics 24EU, and the i3 has Intel HD 630. Neither supports ECC memory, and neither has an unlocked multiplier. The Atom’s launch MSRP is $58, while no MSRP is listed for the i3.

Where Each One Wins

The Atom x7425E wins in every benchmark category measured. Its multi-core performance is about 39% higher across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, making it the clear choice for any workload that can utilize multiple cores. Its single-core scores are also about 38-39% higher, so it wins in lightly-threaded applications as well. This is a rare case where the newer, lower-power chip is simply faster in every measurable way.

The i3-7100T does have some theoretical advantages, though they do not translate into benchmark wins. Its dual-channel memory bus could be beneficial in memory-intensive applications, but the data shows it achieves the same bandwidth as the Atom’s single-channel configuration. Its higher base clock of 3.40 GHz means it performs consistently without needing to boost, but the Atom’s boost clock matches that speed. The i3’s 16 PCIe Gen 3 lanes are more than the Atom’s 9 lanes, which could matter for systems with multiple expansion cards, but this does not affect CPU benchmark scores.

For use cases, the Atom is the better choice for mobile or low-power systems where the 12 W TDP is a critical constraint. Its 4 cores and 6 MB of L3 cache provide more computational headroom than the i3’s 2 cores and 3 MB of L3. The i3, with its 35 W TDP and desktop socket, might be preferable in legacy systems that require Socket 1151 compatibility, but even there, the Atom’s superior benchmark results make it the more capable processor. The data is unambiguous: the Atom x7425E outperforms the i3-7100T by a consistent margin of roughly 39% across all tests, making it the superior choice for virtually any workload.